Here’s a nice little cartoon about creation science in the classroom with what appears to be George Bush as the instructor (a scary thought indeed).
After watching this you too will see the bullet-proof logic behind intelligent design. I hope my kids learn this in school. Enjoy!
Oh and remember… Let’s not try to turn our kids into dangerous idiots ;)
Get the Flash Player to see the wordTube Media Player.
Related posts:
- Jesus Freaks–The Documentary
- Creation Fairy Tale Museum To Open In Kentucky
- Viva Las Vegas
- The Evolution Of Summer Camp
April 7th, 2006 at 12:25 pm
That was pretty stupid.
OH NOES!11! If creatiun sceince is mentiond in r classroomz alls our teh childruns will trn intoo teh BIBLE ZOMBIES!1!one!
;-)
April 8th, 2006 at 7:47 pm
The responses to the kids questions are great. Anyone who’s had any type of argument (not conversation - evangelicals don’t really like to have conversations) with an evangelical will have had a full serving of “if it’s not in the bible ignore it - only what’s in the bible is the truth”.
Gotta love the bible thumpers. I sometimes wonder what it’s like to not be able to think on my own, or to take responsibility for my own actions. Maybe I should pray more…..
April 9th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Great cartoon!
Reminds me of the time I spent eight hours in a bus with a Jesus freak quoting me the bible and trying to convert me to her free will draining circle of fairy tales… It was one long bus travel :(
April 10th, 2006 at 5:37 am
Creationism about that someone, not specifically the christion God, helped the Universe take shape it has, not specifically created everything. It could be Zeus, aliens, fairies, pandimensional superintelligent mice, or the reality could be just a computer simulation.
Creationism has nothing to do with God loving us all or whatever. And frankly, who cares who or what created the Universe - it was a very long time ago.
April 10th, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Who Cares?
Well, doesn’t everybody, in a way. If we were to understand how the Universe was created, that would give us a better understanding of science itself. This of course leads to better computers (quantum science), perhaps the ability to one day actually do some interplanetary travel. And who knows what sort of technological leaps and bounds that could provide. So I think that you should care where you came from.
And saying that we were just created, that’s it, doesn’t help cure cancer, aids, or get you laid for that matter. Only objective research and a good pick-up line can do those things.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:51 pm
creationism should stay along the side and away from what helps us build a better tomorrow.
you know… kept next to santa clause, tooth fairies, etc.
April 19th, 2006 at 9:41 am
Got a nice chuckle out of that cartoon. It would have been stronger if it hadn’t been so simplistic and naive in both questions and answers - but then again, both children and teacher might have been out of character if they had been anything else :)
June 13th, 2006 at 12:06 pm
For real videos about creation and real scientific support (unlike the non-scientifically supported religious idea of “evolution”), go to http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php?type=Seminar+Video or http://www.doinggood.org/Books/Creation/Creation_TOC.htm and download some videos to watch.
April 14th, 2007 at 12:18 am
First off, I’m not going to attack you as you have attacked my faith but I just wanted to say that I have personally experienced the work of the Lord in my life.
When I saw this I felt led to show you this.
The names of the people in the book of Genesis are hebrew names and therefore have a meaning. This is the meanings of the names of the descendants from Adam to Noah in order as found in Gen. ch.5. When put in sentance form it predicts the comeing of christ. It is also important to note that Genesis was written at least 3000 years before the coming of Christ.
THE GOSPLE OF GENESIS
Hebrew-English
Adam-Man
Seth-Appointed
Enosh-Mortal
Kenan-Sorrow
Mahalalel-The Blessed God
Jared-Shall come down
Enoch-Teaching
Methuselah-His death shall bring
Lamech-The Despairing
Noah-Rest, or comfort.
That’s rather remarkable:
Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
Here’s the Gospel hidden within a genealogy in Genesis!
(You will never convince me that a group of Jewish rabbis conspired to hide the Christian Gospel right here in a genealogy within their venerated Torah before it even happened!)
Adam
The first name, Adam, comes from adomah, and means “man.” As the first man, that seems straightforward enough.
Seth
Adam’s son was named Seth, which means “appointed.” When he was born Eve said, “For God hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew.”
Enosh
Seth’s son was called Enosh, which means “mortal,” “frail,” or “miserable.” It is from the root anash: to be incurable; used of a wound, grief, woe, sickness, or wickedness. (It was in the days of Enosh that men began to defile the name of the Living God.)
Kenan
Enosh’s son was named Kenan, from which can mean “sorrow,” dirge,” or “elegy.” (The precise denotation is somewhat elusive; some study aids unfortunately presume an Aramaic root synonymous with “Cainan.”) Balaam, looking down from the heights of Moab, employed a pun upon the name of the Kenites when he prophesied their destruction.
Mahalalel
Kenan’s son was Mahalalel, from mahalal, which means “blessed” or “praise”; and El, the name for God. Thus, Mahalalel means “the Blessed God.” Often Hebrew names included El, the name of God, as Dani-el, “God is my Judge,” Nathani-el, “Gift of God,” etc.
Jared
Mahalalel’s son was named Jared, from the verb yaradh, meaning “shall come down.” Some authorities suggest that this might have been an allusion to the “Sons of God” who “came down” to corrupt the daughters of men, resulting in the Nephilim (”Fallen Ones”) of Genesis 6.3
Enoch
Jared’s son was named Enoch, which means “teaching,” or “commencement.” He was the first of four generations of preachers. In fact, the earliest recorded prophecy was by Enoch, which amazingly enough deals with the Second Coming of Christ.
Methuselah
The Flood of Noah did not come as a surprise. It had been preached on for four generations. But something strange happened when Enoch was 65, from which time “he walked with God.” Enoch was given a prophecy that as long as his son was alive, the judgment of the flood would be withheld; but as soon as he died, the flood would be sent forth.
Enoch named his son to reflect this prophecy. The name Methuselah comes from two roots: muth, a root that means “death”; and from shalach, which means “to bring,” or “to send forth.” Thus, the name Methuselah signifies, “his death shall bring.”
And, indeed, in the year that Methuselah died, the flood came. Methuselah was 187 when he had Lamech, and lived 782 years more. Lamech had Noah when he was 182. The Flood came in Noah’s 600th year.187 + 182 + 600 = 969, Methuselah’s age when he died.
It is interesting that Methuselah’s life was, in effect, a symbol of God’s mercy in forestalling the coming judgment of the flood. It is therefore fitting that his lifetime is the oldest in the Bible, symbolizing the extreme extensiveness of God’s mercy.
Lamech
Methuselah’s son was named Lamech, a root still evident today in our own English word, “lament” or “lamentation.” Lamech suggests “despairing.” (This name is also linked to the Lamech in Cain’s line who inadvertently killed his son Tubal-Cain in a hunting incident.)
Noah
Lamech, of course, is the father of Noah, which is derived from nacham , “to bring relief” or “comfort,” as Lamech himself explains.
I hope and pray that this has led some of you to at least consitter the possibility that the Bible is more than just a book, but the word of the living God. If any of you are at all interested in what I have written here, I encorage you to go to a local church, wether it’s baptist, methodist, lutheran, or penocostal(the message preached is the same) they will tell you whatever you want to know about it. I understand that there is some debate even in the church about creation and I would recomend http://www.drdino.com(posted by Dennis) to clear that up.
I’m sorry that this is so long but I feel that it was necessary and you are all in my prayers.
April 14th, 2007 at 11:13 am
“First off, I’m not going to attack you as you have attacked my faith”
And right off the bat, we have the typical equivocation of belief and believers that the religious try to use to insulate their faith from criticism. a Jesus freak is trying to perpetuate the fallacy that the belief and the believer are equivalent. This is a dangerous mistake.
The danger is made obvious by the very first line of his/her comment. The implication is that he/she is morally justified should he/she choose to ‘attack’ you simple because ‘you’ attacked a belief. In other words, it’s okay to harm a thinking, feeling being if that being ‘harms’ a non-thinking, non-feeling belief. One might as well equivocate the chopping down of a tree to chopping off of a human head. Such reasoning is morally reprehensible, and should be criticized.
The irony is that a Jesus freak made this statement in an attempt to claim the moral high ground. He/she really said, “I willfully refrain from acting upon my moral right to attack you, thus I am ethically superior.” What he/she fails to notice (or at least hopes we will fail to notice) is that he/she has no such moral right. Worse yet, implying a claim to that ‘right’ is, itself, immoral.
I did not comment on the rest of what a Jesus freak said because I did not read it. He/she lost all credibility on the topic of moral truth in the very first sentence.
April 14th, 2007 at 10:43 pm
sidfaiwu, i learn more from your posts than i do from my college honors philosophy course.
April 16th, 2007 at 9:02 am
Thanks irishthunder,
It was actually my college philosophy courses that enabled me to reason as I do. I consider the real value of learning philosophy is not the actual material (though it is very interesting), but the critical thinking skills it teaches. Once one has those skills one can generate their own material. That is much more valuable then merely collecting others’ material.
April 16th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Thanks sid, guess ill be taking a few more philosophy courses. no big deal, i wanted to be a super senior anyways.
July 18th, 2007 at 10:09 am
I think therefore I am. Perhaps all we are missing is the intestinal fortitude to claim godhood for ourselves. Meanwhile, we sit at the mercy of the next major disaster which may teach us how powerless we really are.
Talk is cheap, ideas are plenty but please explain to me how claiming to be “right” (i.e. correct) is immoral. Then perhaps you can tell me how every person that has made an accurate assessment about something in their lifetime is therefore immoral.
Your rant about taking the high-ground did nothing more than reciprocate the previous response. If you want to take the high-ground perhaps you will not defeat yourself by claiming there to be no moral high-ground
July 18th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Um, total-rant, I think you completely misread my comment. All I did was use the concept of harm to demonstrate that attacking a belief is not the same thing as attacking a believer. The religious often equate the two to insulate their beliefs from criticism.
a Jesus freak implied that he/she has a “right” to attack ‘us’. It was claiming this “right” (as in moral permission) that I find immoral, not that he/she was claiming to be right (as in factually correct).
I never claimed there to be no moral high-ground. Where did you get that idea from? Furthermore, I wasn’t really trying to ‘claim the moral high-ground’, I was trying to demonstrate that a Jesus freak failed to behave morally.
Lastly, I fail to see the relevance of your first paragraph. Could you please explain? Thanks.
August 7th, 2007 at 4:14 pm
The kid has a point in the video when he says ‘Why would a loving God create small pox?’
September 18th, 2007 at 8:00 am
Hi Just wondering what software was used to create this
September 21st, 2007 at 9:15 am
Sid, how you managed to reply to “total-rant” without explicitly saying just how unashamedly preposterous his response was is beyond me - well done for demonstrating patience in the face of so much incomprehensible babble. Your reasoning and prose is admirable and long may you continue to voice the word of logic!
November 9th, 2007 at 10:20 pm
A person and his or her beliefs are not easily separated. Therefore to attack a person’s deeply held beliefs in such a way that is less than kind is in essence to attack his very person in that the detractor is implying gullibility or stupidity in believing that which he or she believes. Also, on the detractor’s part, there is shown a strong character flaw in that he thinks himself wiser and more intelligent than the other. No amount of collage or philosophy courses can teach one to be humble and kind. This takes two things. First it takes observing someone better than yourself, and second it takes an honest self-evaluation in which you acknowledge your own shortcomings. With the shortcomings observed in yourself you are now free to deal patiently and kindly with the shortcomings of others since you now know full well that you are also less than perfect.
Also it might be well to acknowledge that sometimes what a person writes is not meant in the way the reader takes it. Case in point: a Jesus freak may not have meant that he would be justified in physically attacking an opponent because that opponent first attacked his beliefs. Instead he may have only meant that he was not going to attack his opponent’s beliefs as that person had attacked his own, inferring in his statement an equivalent form of attack.
The truth of the matter is that in stopping with the first sentence and finding fault there even though, likely as not, none was intended, the reader has derailed the whole discussion and tried, unsuccessfully in my eyes, to make him or herself to look intellectually brilliant. Then to make matters worse, there comes along another which helps to further inflate that reader’s robust ego.
The readers may do well to take the advice of one far wiser than all here represented:
“When pride cometh, then cometh shame: but with the lowly is wisdom.” - Proverbs 11:2
“Only by pride cometh contention: but with the well advised is wisdom.” - Proverbs 13:10
“Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.” - Proverbs 16:18
November 10th, 2007 at 1:07 am
Addressing the Video
This video is very misleading, as is always the case with such propaganda.
First of all, the video asserts that we share 99% of our DNA with Chimpanzees. This is a silly statement since it could also be argued that we share 88% of the DNA of a fungus. It is also true that a Chimpanzee has more genetic material in its DNA code than does a human. I think that would throw off the percentages a little! At any rate, if two creatures are made in the same place by the same Creator, it only stands to reason that they would share genetic similarities, and therefore this proves nothing.
The second false assertion is that the world is in the state in which God intended it to be. This is inferred by the question, “Then why did God make Smallpox?” The Bible is very clear that it was God’s intention that none ever become sick or die. It was, however, also His intention that we exist as beings of freewill, and therefore this allowance made an unfortunate leeway for suffering and death. Rather than have robots that simply follow their programming, God desired beings that were free to have their own thoughts. This comes with both great rewards and great perils in that the free thinking being is free to love his or her creator or choose to reject his creator and even his own existence choosing instead to self-destruct. Many choose to put themselves before all others. In this way they hoard, steal, kill, and enslave all with a faint hope of fulfilling their own desires. We have all made ill choices such as these, and therefore, we suffer from both our wrong choices and the wrong choices of others.
It might also be noted that if one blamed God for smallpox, one must also extol God for giving us the knowledge and ability for making a vaccination.
The third false claim of the above video is that of forcing someone to have faith. This is the most egregious lie in the video. Faith can not come by requirement or enticement; it can only come by freewill. Faith is the act of trusting in someone or something. This can only be brought about by getting to know that person or thing. If creationism were to be taught in public school (it is already taught in some private schools) it would not be required of the students to believe the lesson but only to learn what creationists theorize. As we well know, people don’t believe ever theory that is taught in school. The video acknowledges this very fact in that it states that only 28% of Americans believe in the theory of evolution even though it has been taught in public schools since the mid nineteen-sixties and the theory has been around for over one-hundred years.
As far as children who learn creationism becoming “dangerous idiots,” this is just more evolutionist propaganda. Most of the people in the United States of America believe in a god in one form or another, and yet we pioneered all the branches of the medical practice. Believing in creationism does not mean you have checked your brain at the door. If someone had the intestinal fortitude to hear out the creationists’ theories, I think they would not seem so idiotic.
On another note . . . Have you ever noticed that many hospitals have the name of a Church in their titles? Why do you think that is? The truth is that religious organizations were first in the establishment of hospital complexes throughout the world. Ever heard of an Atheist Hospital, or maybe an Evolutionist Hospital? I haven’t! I have, however, heard of Baptist Hospitals, Catholic Hospitals, and Adventist Hospitals, only to name a few. If the assertion of the above video is true, then we have been in the hands of these so called “dangerous idiots” for a very long time.
I want to end with a few questions:
If evolution is such a good theory, then why would we need to worry about our kids believing any of the creationist theories? If there are no flaws in the theory of evolution, why do only “28%” of Americans believe it? Are you trying to tell me that 72% of the American population is to be classified as “dangerous idiots” because they reject the validity of the evolutionary hypothesis? Are the 28% of Americans who “believe” in evolution supposed to be allowed to shove it down the throats of the other 72%? Lastly, why do people gets so angry when one questions the legitimacy of this one-hundred year old, impotent, assumption called evolution that stands closer to being religion than it does science? Could it be because they are fighting against the doubt that creeps up in their minds during the lone hours of their lives? Could they secretly fear that there really is a Creator, and that He might feel neglected by their indifference to His existence?
Hey, don’t get mad at me . . . I’m just asking some honest questions.
November 10th, 2007 at 1:11 pm
Your free will story does nothing to explain why god created smallpox. Seeing how you don’t think evolution exists, god must have created smallpox and because he’s omnipotent, he knew it was going to kill half a billion people. That’s not very benevolent of him is it? Even if he created the vaccine, that didn’t reverse anything.
Nobody has a problem with creationism being taught in schools. We have a problem with creationism being taught as science, which it is clearly not. The problem is with presenting creationism as thruth while it not.
Because Atheist hospitals are just called “hospital”.
The Netherlands (arguably one of the best healthcare systems in the world) has almost NO christian hospitals. And before you start refuting anything, it’s the same everywhere in europe, and we’ve been around for a LOT longer than the USA.
You cannot seriously be this oblivious. Kids believe in the toothfary and Santaclaus as well. Kids will believe anything you tell them.
I dunno, It might have something to do with your choice of words there. It might also have something to do with your completely retarded comparison. Religion is based one the blind acceptance of unchanging stories, where scientific theory is about adapting your model to fit all known observations. Tell me how they are the same?
Only if they act on it as if it were true.
————
So, while evolution has millions of examples, ten of thousands of people who’ve tried to disprove it and came up empty handed, has predictiveness and has proven it, has proven and correct connections with other fields of science and actually mirrors reality.
Creationism on the other hand has word of mouth, is based on an ancient story which was made to get people to accept the rule of their king, doesn’t have a shred of evidence, and doesn’t match with anything we know of the universe at all.
Don’t get mad at me, I’m just pointing out some facts.
December 18th, 2007 at 11:20 am
This was very offensive to and many other people. Many people believe in creation, including myself. Why doesn’t anyone make fun of darwinism… i feel very disgusted that anyone can just go around making fun of the fact that Christians believe the things we do, but yet if any other belief gets put down, it turns out to be a huge controversy. please think before you post something like this as it is very offensive. also, i prefer to think of myself as a human being, not something that evolved from a monkey! and if that is true…why are chimpanzees still around and not evolving anymore??? doesn’t make any sense to me! now i am not attacking you, but i am stating my opinion, just as was done in this post. this cannot be taken in a bad way as you have done the same thing to me and the people that believe the same as me.
December 18th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
qt4christ:
That’s cause it’s not a beleif, it’s Science baby! We’re living in a different world than what you’re used to; it’s a world of realism, logic and fact. People’s made up stories and feelings don’t weigh as much here as they do in your world.
That’s why this seems so hilarious to me, and so offensive to you. For health reasons alone, it’s best not to do or beleive in anything that could lead to being offend or stressed out. I think we both could agree that you don’t need extra worries; what with hell and external judgement and all, right? And if you’re really serious about the questions you asked, there are a lot of answers to them on this website.
December 18th, 2007 at 1:48 pm
“This was very offensive to and many other people.”
My first thought was, “Really?!?” Then my second was, “Good. Ignorance of that kind should be offended.” Really, it’s that people are a little over-sensitive to offending anyone. Political Correctness has been taken too far.
qt4christ, there’s no way around it. Belief in Creationism stems from ignorance. In fact, the questions you pose only serve to highlight your utter lack of knowledge about human evolution.
Ape’s and humans have common ancestors. Just like you and any of your cousins have common ancestry. It would just sound foolish to state, “I prefer to think of myself as a human being, not something that evolved from my cousin! and if that is true… why are my cousins still around and not evolving???”
Sound’s pretty stupid, doesn’t it? That’s how your quoted statement above sounds to anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of evolution.
Are you offended now? Good. Do some educational reading and it won’t happen again.
December 18th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
I’ve noticed that whenever I talk to someone who denies evolution they don’t really like science. So no matter how much evidence stands in front of them, they will still use the “We didnt come from no monkeys!!” argument.
December 18th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
And ironically, those who use that argument are probably the least evolved from monkeys…
December 19th, 2007 at 12:23 am
i laugh at how ignorant the people were who made this cartoon! i wish we could get some truth every once and a while instead of garbage from the PC crowd!
December 19th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Who’s in this “PC” crowd your talking about?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Political Correctness, sorry, the people who think all white males are racist and sexist, you know who i’m talking about?
December 19th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
lol, I think the “people who think all white males are racist and sexist” are a smaller group than you expect. You’ll likely find widespread agreement around here that political correctness has been taken too far.
December 19th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
“all white males are racist and sexist”
Everyone judges and generalizes (racism) and ALL MEN treat women like objects(sexism). I’m doing it now, generalizing the public; it’s called making mistakes, it’s how we evolve.
January 8th, 2008 at 9:17 pm
why is this website called religious freaks if it is against religion?
i agree with your statements about people who say if it isn’t in the Bible it isn’t true, but i don’t believe in evolution. Evolution has no evidence, just facts that can be used to form educated guesses. I don’t think it is possible for us to have evolved from anything because there are no hybrids right now.
It is obvious that life was created by an all powerful being because otherwise, there is no explaination of where it came from. You can say you believe in the big bang theory, and lightning striking the amino acids to make life, but who created the amino acids? Who created lightning? There is an all powerful being behind all of this.
January 8th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
jesusfreak, I kind of want to respond to you and explain where you’re wrong, I’m really feeling the temptation, but really every point you bring up has been brought back down on this site, and brought down repeatedly. The existence of “middle” species, the argument from ignorance, assuming the causa sui, how was x made, it’s been brought up here before. Look further on the site and see for yourself. Also, your definition of evidence is…interesting.
January 9th, 2008 at 4:26 pm
ahh, another person to stupid to understand the universe.
Go get a proper scientific education, and come back in about 5 years when you’re no longer ignorant about evolution, abiogenesis, astronomy, statistics and general critical thinking.
Then, when you know what you’re talking about, try to make the same claim.
It may sound harsh, but really, every single sentence you typed shows you don’t have a clue what’s going on.
April 24th, 2008 at 12:40 pm
god bless
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The level of scientific illiteracy in the US is astounding. No wonder evolution is doubted by so many. They aren’t even familiar with the most basic concepts of science, so how could they ever make an intelligent response to evolution? Just on this comment section, I’ve read some of the most erroneous comments, worse than my 9th grade LD biology classes make. I also notice a strong correlation between poor science grades and a fundamentalist view of the bible among these kids, but, hey, it’s a small, unrepresentative sample that I wouldn’t want to generalize from. But I’m just saying……
June 21st, 2008 at 2:24 am
First off,I have my post-graduate degrees in applied science, not post-modernistic philosophy. I teach Biology, Physics and Chemistry and I train my students to question everything - experimental data and both postulated scientific and pseudo-scientific theories. This means that I expect my students to examine honestly the claims and evidences of evolution, Intelligent Design, young and old Earth creationism and a host of other ‘theories’. My students are expected to acknowledge the legitimacy of claims and to expose the short-comings of claims. Evolution theory itself does have some honest short-comings, the way that evolution is presented has many, I believe, dishonest short-comings. The scientist of tomorrow (indeed today) must have the ability to discern truth and logic from rank hyberbole and baseless rhetoric.
I would encourage commentors from both sides of the fence to rigorously question the claims that have been put forward by both their pet theorists and from the ‘opposition’ side. Be honest and open…you may just be surprised at what you find out.
June 21st, 2008 at 11:36 am
“This means that I expect my students to examine honestly the claims and evidences of evolution, Intelligent Design, young and old Earth creationism and a host of other ‘theories’.”
Your first problem is putting Evolution beside all that crap and trying to equate them. Evolution is an actual SCIENTIFIC theory, none of the other beliefs have earned that.
“Evolution theory itself does have some honest short-comings, the way that evolution is presented has many, I believe, dishonest short-comings.”
What are some of these ’short-comings’? I’d wager they don’t come close to the HUGE faults with Creationism.
Creationism has no place in Biology, Physics, or Chemistry. It is as simple as that.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:40 pm
Uhm, examining all sides is fine, but be honest about it. Present students with a huge list of examples of evidence in support of evolution, an empty list with evidence that does’t match evolution.
Then give em the exact reverse for creationism and let ‘em make up their minds.
June 22nd, 2008 at 9:15 am
First to Irishthunder - one short-coming is the evolution of DNA itself, the formation of the molecular structure of the nucleic acid bases followed by their use as coding for all protein synthesis (and lets include just for fun the relationship between nuclear DNA and mitochondrial DNA which is thought to be have an endosymbiotic beginning), and what the heck, lets also consider the evolution of the biochemical pathway of the conversion of rhodopsin which is necessary for the activation of optic receptors in the retina. I don’t want rhetoric, I want to know the truth. Not the philosophical crap that you seem to be eschewing; how did these systems develop? Science has no answer. That does not mean that an answer may not be found one day, it means that there is no probable theory at the moment, hence it is a shortcoming.
A shortcoming of young earth creationism belief (note the word ‘belief’ not theory) is the presence of a lot of evidence that intimates a very old earth - that is a shortcoming.
Second to Alcari -there’s two on the problem list for evolution, there are others, now if you truly want to be honest with yourself go and look with an open and enquiring mind.
But one point I applaud you both on, neither of you disagreed with the many shortcomings in the presentation of evolutionary theory - one hint for that is the very common application of directed evolution e.g. an organism evolved eyebrows to keep the sweat out of its eyes. Organisms cannot direct there own evolution, unless of course they use GM on their own designer babies.
Cheers guys.
June 22nd, 2008 at 11:32 am
“how did these systems develop? Science has no answer. That does not mean that an answer may not be found one day, it means that there is no probable theory at the moment, hence it is a shortcoming.”
I can’t deny the questions that are still unanswered by science. How does the sun move across the sky in an even form and rate everyday? Before science explained how the Earth rotated and related to the other bodies in our solar system, the explanation presented was that Apollo rode his chariot across the sky with the sun following behind.
It is foolish to dismiss science because it doesn’t have an answer right now, because it will only be an matter of time. Also, you cannot deny that creationism, and all it’s variations, is not a theory and has not had to endure the constant scrutiny that comes with being proposed in the scientific community.
June 22nd, 2008 at 8:00 pm
Now, I’m no biologist, so please correct me if I’m wrong, but I always thought DNA was formed something like this:
http://www.evolutionofdna.com/Protein-Transcription.html
But, your point is valid, evolution doesn’t have every single answer. However, it has 99.5% of them, and it looks like the rest is coming. That’s not my point though.
The point is that ID or whatever creationism wants to be called, isn’t science. There IS no theory to test, no evidence to examine and no tests to run. There is no predictiveness and no explanatory ability. Once creationism is called upon to explain anything, it fails utterly. Try it:
– How is it possible that X?
Evolution: Because Y happened, it affected Z, and resulted in X.
Creationism: God did it.
– So what would happen if X?
Evolution: Considering previous observations, probably Y
Creationism: Uhhh…. God did it?
I’m all for teaching creationism, but as part of comparative religion classes, not pretending it’s science. It’s fair to say what evolution hasn’t explained yet, but it should be pointed out that those shortcomings are minute compared the “alternative theories”. The precise effects of secondary and tertiary endosymbiosis on the eukaryotic family tree, are nothing compared to a hypothesis that directly constradict most of the available evidence.
Also, I wonder, are you in favor of pointing out the shortcoming of the heliocentric model and teaching geocentrism as well? Demons-make-you-ill in combination with germ theory, Flat earth as well as round earth? Should you present a list of pros and cons of those as well? My point is, reality isn’t a democracy. Just because an ancient book says something doesn’t make it a valid theory.
This all remind me a cartoon I can’t seem to find. In it, Evolution and Creationism are both writing a novel. Creationism points out that there’s a comma where there should be a period on line seven, page twenty-one. Evolution points out that Creationism drew a picture of a cat.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:22 pm
How can anybody in this day and age still refute the evidence provided by the scientific community.
a You can measure evolution in nature, in the lab, on the farm.
b. Evolutionary theory is the verbal and mathematical ideas about how (NOT whether) evolution occurs, just like talking about the theory of gravity doesn’t reflect doubt about whether gravity occurs
One of the closest mammels to humans are Bonobo’s, who live in a small area near the Congo. These clever smart animals share not only a lot of the DNA of humans (98%) but also is often capable of altruism, compassion, empathy, kindness, patience and sensitivity.Please check out the link below
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/susan_savage_rumbaugh_on_apes_that_write.html
Creationism is not a science so please stop pretending it is and what I particularly liked about this cartoon was the little undertones of anti-semitism there at the end and the fact george bush character was teaching the class.
Doc 1 -”Well he’s gone to a better place now, Finklesttein, hairdresser.
Doc 2 -”maybe not” ???????????????
your either with us or your going to burn in hell is that really the message you want to send out?
August 6th, 2008 at 6:46 am
How can anybody in this day and age still refute the evidence provided by the scientific community.
Simple. They’re brainwashed idiots who cannot fathom the mere possibility that they might be wrong.